| Author: | | Pentaxian Registered: April, 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Posts: 18,076 | | Review Date: March 11, 2013 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Build, colors, can be quite sharp ... | | Cons: | Slow at f3.5 ... | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 8
| |
Bonjour,
I acquired a copy of this lens, and I am quite pleased with it.
All of the previous reviews have said about all one can say concerning this lens ... build quality is great, colors are nice, etc.
Mine is a "Super" version (49 mm), and in great shape overall. I will try to post some captures later on ...
Salut, John le Frog | | | | | | | Junior Member Registered: October, 2010 Location: Berlin Posts: 33
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 10, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Colours, Sharpness, Contrast | | Cons: | slow, prone to flare | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K5
| |
A wonderful little lens, it woul be perfect if it wasn't 3,5. But I guess you can't have everything. The lens is compact, easy to focus and produces beautifully sharp, colourful and contrasty images. A very depandable performer. Mine is the non-SMC version though and flares very easily, which is a cool effect but you have to watch out or use a hood. I don't use it very often since I got the Tamron 17-50. Of course being an AF-zoom the Tamron is much more flexible and almost as sharp but has much cooler colours. Two examples:
 It's built von 1 of them auf Flickr
Lisboa von 1 of them auf Flickr
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 3,757
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 23, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | very sharp (in the center), great colors, great micro-contrast | | Cons: | a bit heavy, not the easiest to focus, slightly soft borders | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-x
| |
I got a copy of the S-M-C version in 'like new' condition. (A few years back I had a non-SMC copy, also excellent, but larger and heavier.)
I'm giving it a 9, and not strictly relative to the price, in spite of the slight border softness (a tad of which is still there even at f5.6, gone at f8). Yet the border softness is never bothersome, never very pronounced.
The lens yields superb images, better in my view than the ones produced by the A 28mm f2.8 (which I also had). Very natural and vivid colors, deep blue skies, and superior microcontrast. If I were to use a consumer zoom to take an image of a scene with lots of detail, the image would most likely look muddy. This lens manages to keep the finest grained nuances in their right places. The effect is salient: crisp 3-dimensionality. No CA that I'm aware of.
Build is awesome, better than the ltds, IMO. All metal, sturdy, impressive industrial design. Can't afford a ltd.? Learn to use manual lenses, buy a Tak or a K or M lens! But hurry up, cause Cannonites have gotten a taste of the Taks!
I'm sure these beautiful little guys (the Taks, I mean) will hold their own against modern lenses 20 years from now. I have the Takumar 35mm f3.5 too--another under-appreciated jewel.
UPDATE: Borders are sharp at close-range. In landscapes they remain somewhat soft even at f8. Still, a beautiful lens. My wide lens of choice--but I'm looking for a 24mm.
A few pics taken with this lens:
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,429
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 8, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $65.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Good Contrast, Build, Sharp, Colors | | Cons: | None really | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 9
| |
I picked up this lens a few months ago. It is now one of my main landscape lenses. Sharpness is great from F5.6 on. The build quality is typical Takumar excellence. Good contrast and color. A very good all around lens.
Here are a few samples.
F-22-1 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
Indian-Peaks-Wilderness-6 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
Indian-Peaks-Wilderness-1 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
Badlands-28-June-2012-6 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
Badlands-28-June-2012-4 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
16-June-2012-8 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
Snowy-Range-27-May-2012-4 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
19-May-2012-3 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
| | | | | | | Giveaway winner! Registered: December, 2007 Location: beantown Posts: 944
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 20, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $15.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Both vers. Very Sharp | | Cons: | cant decide which to keep. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: SV & SPII. tested on K20D also.
| |
I have both the 58mm and 49mm Super-Tak
I've not been able to separate the differences of the two... not actually been looking hard.
Off and on I've used either and find so far that both do a great job. The sharpness and color on both Ektar and some old Kodak Gold 100 look great. The bigger version had one oddness in a sunset and I figure it was more the angle. A slight noticeable ghost did show... forget image, but will add to this review when I dig it up.
The smaller version was very well behaved. In some of the dSLR tests I for testing the condition of the lens when I first got it, I was very surprised the color was very good and compared to a M28/2.8 set to f4 was hard to pick out which lens was which. My simple poor lighting and reading a product label test from 20 feet away and both lenses were about equal with only the color of the M28 being more nicer. So with the slightly differing glass it does well against the more modern version.
I would sum it up as both being very good lenses and that either does well on film. For the digital users, I'm sure the SMC version may be better.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2010 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 1,465
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 16, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $24.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | very sharp, classic design, 49mm filters | | Cons: | slow, CA, hard to focus, flare | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Spotmatic, K-x
| |
I bought this beat-up lens for a cheap price mainly because I think prices for wide angles will skyrocket with the announcement of the fictive new Pentax full-frame. So, if you're now looking at reviews for this lens, there's not much time left to wait. It is the Super version, so there is some contrast loss to be expected, and it does flare when the sun or any light source is in front of it.
Unfortunately, M42 lenses tend to be owned and sought after by Canon shooters too, so they also keep the prices high.
Build-wise, it's a Takumar, so it must be very easy to service. My copy was very well used, with a lot of paint loss, a drilled filter ring by an impatient repairman, a stiff focus ring and a loose distance scale, but I repaired some of the issues and now it performs well.
Of course I don't do any scientific tests on any of my lenses, but this sure seems sharp from wide open throughout. I can complain a little about the colors, I don't really know how the SMC version performs, but this Super has the golden coatings, and it's my assumption that since most yellow colors get reflected, the lens gets a cold, blue cast. It also has a magenta cast, making it weird for portraits, because of turning peoples skins red.
I have read in this article that the Takumar 28/3.5 was the lens design that benefited the most from SMC coatings, so while I have not tested the SMC version, I expect it to perform noticeably better.
For "serious" work, I still prefer the M28/2.8, which flares less, is faster and easier to handle. Maybe I should just use this one more and complain less.
Here's some of my pictures with it, I know that's what you want.
1.
IMGP4491.jpg by kcobain1992, on Flickr
2.
IMGP4188.jpg by kcobain1992, on Flickr
3.
IMGP4918.jpg by kcobain1992, on Flickr
4.
IMGP7304.jpg by kcobain1992, on Flickr
EDIT:
After selling the Super and acquiring the SMC, I can attest that it is a better lens: less flare, better contrast and more controlled CA. Although the latter is not completely gone, it goes away with a button press in Lightroom, and I find that good enough.
5.
Basilica Cistern 3 by kcobain1992, on Flickr
6.
Kala Nera beach 6 by kcobain1992, on Flickr
7.
Kala Nera beach 3 by kcobain1992, on Flickr
8.
Meteora 2 by kcobain1992, on Flickr
9.
Potistika beach by kcobain1992, on Flickr
10.
Kala Nera beach 1 by kcobain1992, on Flickr
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: October, 2010 Location: Baltimore Posts: 2,542 | | Review Date: March 7, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Takumar, Sharp, Contrasty, Compact | | Cons: | f3.5 if anything | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I have the First Model Late Version Super Takumar and I really cannot complain about anything. It's got more than acceptable IQ, sharpness is there, typical takumar colors and nice contrast. My copy shows a good amount of wear but optically, it delivers every time.
I tried both this version 58mm and the Super Takumar 49mm (filter thread) and this version was way way better than the 49mm version. Mine came with the OEM hood, which is so nice! If you're into Takumars, the 28mm is a must have for your collection!
Almost a 100% Crop
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: January, 2009 Location: Varaždin, Croatia, Europe Posts: 295 | | Review Date: May 14, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | small, sharp, great workmanship, | | Cons: | a bit slow at f/3,5 | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
It's the Super Multi Coated version that goes to f/16. Got one by accident on an auction site. It cost me $40 in mint condition with the original case and the little Asahi Pentax nylon bag.
The lens looks cute mounted in the camera  It's pretty sharp wide open altough I wish it were a bit faster. Nice colors. Sometimes the metering gets fooled, but not by a lot. It's a nice "normal" lens mounted on the K-7 (43mm eq.)
I still haven't decided whether I should keep it or not. It's definately a nice lens, but I'm not using it very much.
One recent shot:
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: January, 2009 Posts: 173
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 28, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Cheap, good build, small. | | Cons: | Corner softness, CAs, Low Contrast | |
Mine was the SMC Takumar with aperture going only to F16.
This is a great lens and it was a part of my primary kit for a while, after I re-lubed the focusing on this lens, the handling was out of this world. Even though I've loved this lens so much, I gotta be fair in my review. The lens was probably a top of the line optical achievement when it was released, however I believe it doesn't quite match up to today's standards.
The lens is sharp but only in the center, the sharpness falls off very rapidly as you go towards the borders. Stopping the lens down does not help very much. I almost always had to boost the contrast in PP since the images looked a bit flat. Wide open the lens vignettes. The colors are a bit cold for my liking, had to adjust that too. CAs are also a problem for this lens, even at F8 there are a lot of CA's. Overall I would say it is a good lens, but I think Pentax released much better 28mm lenses further down the line, so if you are a Takumar freak this lens is not bad, but I suggest getting M 28mm F3.5, or A 28mm F2.8. Those lenses have much better sharpness across the frame.
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107 | | Review Date: January 24, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $65.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | solid build, smooth focus ring, sharp at f/8 on digital bodies | | Cons: | | |
49mm ring size. When paired with my K-7 on a bright sunny, day, is capable of producing some very nice results. Nice colors and just enough depth at 3.5 with close subject to produce a nice slightly blurred background and nice detail of the subject. If I had a Pentax film camera, this lens would be on that body most as the focal length on film is just wide enough for my tastes to be a daily lens.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2010 Posts: 209 | | Review Date: November 27, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $45.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | small size, price, build quality, great wide film lens | | Cons: | slow, not so useful on digital | |
This review is for the 49mm super-multi-coated version
This is the Takumar lens I use least.
I bought it because I had a 55mm and 135mm lens for my spotmatic and I wanted a wide for it.
I never use it on my DSLR simply because I have a 30mm f1.4 which I prefer to use.
I'm not a wide angle shooter, i generally prefer the 30-80 range.
I paid 45$ for it on ebay and it came with the leather case (no hood)
I carry it around for when I need to shoot in a tight place. It's tiny so it's not a bother to bring when I shoot with my spotmatic.
At the price these go for, they are great wide angle film lenses. On digital, it has not been useful to me.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: September, 2008 Location: Nanaimo, BC Posts: 261
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 29, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Sharp, great colors stopped down, fantastic build. | | Cons: | Not very fast, focusing difficult. | |
I own the first version and early build, Super-Takumar 28/3.5. Has the F22 position, different distance scale, rounded font, and 58mm front end.
This is the first wide I've picked up for my Spotmatic, and it is a great lens. I didn't know much about it until I went looking at it online after purchase, and was blown away to find out that this particular version was produced between 1962-1964, making it the oldest Takumar I own. I've never been let down by the constrast and sharpness of this lens. I usually shoot it at 5.6 and out, and it always surprises, especially with a good high-resolution film behind it (think Kodak Ektar 100).
There are a few caveats. First is, for a prime, it's relatively slow wide open, but this can be rectified with faster film. I say relatively because, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a deal breaker. If you're shooting outdoors you can use 100ISO film without fault, and still manage 60-125th/second speeds at 5.6 to 8. If you need slow grain film and indoor shots, use a tripod. Second is the focusing mechanism. I make allowances for these lenses' focusing feel due to their age (my SMC Takumars are a lot stiffer focusing than the Super-Takumars, and I don't know if that's a lens thing or an age thing), but I have considerable difficulty getting proper focus out of this lens if I'm not shooting at infinity. Everything is so small in the viewfinder that confirming proper focus requires outdoors-or-equivalent lighting. Compounding matters, the focus scale is the shortest I've yet encountered on a Takumar. Third, your early models only had a 5 blade aperture, which makes for some interesting bokeh, although I suppose this is subjective, as I like the busier look. And lastly, due to the wide optics and the lack of super-multi-coating, it flares pretty consistently when aimed at a light source, even with an SMC UV filter in front of it.
That may sound like a lot of complaints, but really, you have to hand it to this lens. It produces great shots so long as you don't go pushing it's problem areas as noted above, and it cost peanuts, at least when I found mine. Digital users pay $400+ for this kind of wide angle performance in a prime lens. Just don't point it at the sun, and you're good to go.  | | | | | Moderator
Site Supporter Registered: June, 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Posts: 17,377
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 1, 2010 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
|
This is for version 2 of model 1 of this lens. In other words, it has 58mm filter threads and the aperture is f3.5-16. I like this one better than the later Super Tak model for looks if for no other reason. The later one is smaller, but if I want small, I'd go with one of the 35mm f3.5 Taks. I believe the different optical formula in this lens gives images different look than the later versions.
I use a Nikon HN-22 hood with a 58-62mm Tiffen step-up ring with this lens. If you don't use a hood/shade with this lens, you aren't doing the lens justice.
| | | | | Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus Registered: May, 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Posts: 10,643
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 27, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $75.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Build, Sharpness, colour rendition | | Cons: | None to speak of | |
I have the "4th version" and the newer Super Tak 49mm filter thread version. See pics below. Both lenses perform similarly. In fact I really can't tell the difference in the images. The older 4th version is substantially larger in every respect.
A nicely built (like all M42 Taks) I love the colour quality of this lens and nice and sharp even wide open. Nice Bokeh. Stopped down, it's a very sharp lens. No issues with PF/CA even in tough light.
Highly recommended even though the price has increased, at around $75.00 consider that a lens like the FA28mm f2.8 is going to cost $350.00 and IMO isn't as good a lens (soft wide open).
You'll notice from the attach photos that the construction is very different. The new 49mm lens has a flat front element and the older 58mm is curved. Size is quite different as well.
   | | | | | Moderator
Site Supporter Registered: June, 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Posts: 17,377
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 9, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $45.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Compact Size and build | | Cons: | f3.5 is a bit slow | |
This is for the Super Tak that takes the 49mm filters. This lens is capable of good colors. The contrast is improved with the matching shade.
Note to people review the 28mm Taks: It is important that you specify which lens you are reviewing. The Super Tak with 58mm filter lenses have 7 elements in 6 groups while the 49mm filter Super Tak and S-M-C tak lenses have 7 elements in 7 groups.
| | |
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
